The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a dropped kerb installation charge. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and not enough significant injustice to justify our investigation.
The complaint
Mr Y complained the Council charged him for dropped kerb work to be completed outside his home. Mr Y says the Council claims it needed to charge for extra excavation works, but Mr Y says workers told him no additional work was necessary and charges should not in their view be made.
Mr Y feels he has lost out financially and is upset that the Council is maintaining its view, which he says is not true.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council offered residents in Mr Y’s road a reduced rate for installing dropped kerb access in June 2022 as part of a footpath improvement programme. It offered to install the dropped kerb (two dropped kerbs and three intermediate kerbs) for £500, with costs for additional kerbs at £100 each. Mr Y paid the Council £1,100 to have the work to install a dropped kerb outside his property completed.
When the Council’s contractors completed the work, Mr Y spoke to workers on site, who he says told him there was no reason why additional costs were involved between a dropped kerb and a normal kerb. Mr Y says the workers told him the installation of a dropped kerb should not in their view be chargeable. Mr Y then complained to the Council and asked for his money to be returned during the summer 2022.
The Council gave its final response in September, explaining additional work to excavate for kerbs was needed and had been confirmed as completed by the contractor. It accepted that the workers may have had a different view, but said this was an opinion and that they may not be aware of other costs such as additional work to design and build for a dropped kerb. It therefore did not refund Mr Y the money and did not accept fault. Mr Y approached us in October.
In his complaint form to us, Mr Y says he has video evidence showing the Council’s contractors did not dig at the required depths the Council has suggested was necessary. Mr Y therefore believes the Council has not been truthful in its complaint response.
Analysis Mr Y feels he has been asked to pay the Council for additional work, particularly excavation work, that he believes was neither necessary, nor completed when the dropped kerb was installed.
The Council explained its charges in its offer to residents, as described in paragraph five. Mr Y accepted these charges prior to the work being completed and paid more for each additional kerb stone needed for his driveway. As the work was completed with kerbstones installed, it is very unlikely we would find fault in the Council making a charge which was pre-agreed and accepted by Mr Y.
Mr Y has suggested the Council did not carry out further excavations as it had said was necessary for the dropped kerb. The Council has explained that the difference between the excavation work of a normal kerb and a dropped kerb is 37mm. Whether the Council did carry out the necessary excavation or not, any alleged fault has not caused Mr Y a significant injustice. This would include the payment, as Mr Y was paying for the dropped kerb to be installed and the necessary work to allow for this, which was done as Mr Y now has a dropped kerb. Consequently, there is not significant enough of an injustice to justify our involvement in this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and not enough significant injustice to justify our investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman